Many people, including us were wondering just who might stand against Len Brown for the mayoralty later this year. It is a question that has been simmering away for a while now and burst to life again earlier this week after National party MP Maurice Williamson said that he was thinking about standing (note: thinking about standing is not the same as standing). The thought of this happening has music to the ears of those who oppose Len and many are publicly encouraging him to stand. Now at this stage I’m not particularly interested in personalities involved or the debate about who might win. I am however far more interested in the wider implications if someone like Maurice were to stand.
In general, most people don’t vote for parties in a national election based on their transport policy, far more important seem to be issues surrounding education, health and the economy with transport well down the list. This is quite different at the local body level however where transport can often be the issue that decides the election, especially so in Auckland. It was pushing the Eastern Highway that sunk John Banks first mayoralty. Although Gerry Brownlee hinted that the government was considering it again just a few days ago.
In 2010 during the first elections of the combined Auckland we also saw transport become a central theme with both candidates pushing for the CRL. Banks seemed to have made a complete 180 from his first term in office in which he thankfully was unsuccessful in trying to stop Britomart from being built (thanks Christine Fletcher) and at the start of his 2010 campaign supporting not only the CRL but also rail to Albany and the Airport. Over the course of the campaign he moved away from that position and in the end only supported the CRL but it was fairly clear for all to see that the issue of transport, particularly rail was something that could not be ignored by candidates.
Fast forwarding back to today, it is this issue which raises interesting questions about any potential mayoralty bid from Williamson. Polling plays a critical part of these kinds of election bids and we know that public transport in general, as well as specific projects like the CRL tend to strongly supported by locals. As such I suspect it would be extremely risky for a candidate to stand on a platform of not supporting at least the CRL, especially when it has not only strong support amongst not only the wider population but also the business community. Yet if Williamson were to do that, even if he didn’t win, it would only serve to put more pressure on the current government around these issues.
Interestingly I’m not the only one with these thoughts, I had partially written this post when several of the opinion pieces in the herald today came to the same conclusion. The Herald even devoted its editorial to the issue which is particularly scathing of him..
The policies and planks of Mayor Len Brown should be subjected to the challenge of a worthy rival in October. Only then will the advancement and assessment of alternative ideas, part of the fabric of a healthy democracy, take place. Unfortunately, such an opponent has not emerged. It is not John Minto, the Mana Party candidate for Manukau East at the last general election, who announced his bid yesterday. Nor is it the National Party’s long-standing Pakuranga MP, Maurice Williamson, who is considering running. In both cases, these are the wrong men wishing to be the mayor for the wrong reason.
Mr Williamson would, of course, be the more formidable challenger. His possible candidacy is exciting the political right. Centre-right councillor Cameron Brewer has hailed him as a potential “circuit-breaker” for local government in the Super City because he would be able to repair relationships with the central government. “Maurice could try and mend some bridges on issues such as the central rail loop, alternative transport funding, Unitary Plan issues and the vexed issue of how to address Auckland’s housing affordability,” said Mr Brewer.
Relationships might, indeed, be better if Mr Williamson sat in the mayoral chair, but that would be only because he would serve essentially as a siphon. His natural inclination would be to ensure due heed was paid to a National government’s wishes, some of which would certainly not correspond to the desires of Aucklanders.
If he were to become involved, it seems the motive would be tribal politics and the wish to unseat a left-leaning mayor, not the pursuit of fresh policies aimed at mending Auckland’s woes. Indeed, Mr Williamson has not noticeably immersed himself in issues specifically involving the city during his 26 years as the MP for Pakuranga.
First, Mr Williamson is something of a loose cannon when it comes to toeing the party line, and could well embarrass his parliamentary colleagues in the heat of a long election campaign. Worse for them, he could lose after a bruising six-month long Auckland versus Government stoush. A curtain-raiser to – and possible predicter of – the 2014 general election.
In the left corner will be Mr Brown, with widespread support, eye-balling the Government on issues like affordable housing, leaky housing compensation and inner city rail.
In the right corner will be the current Minister for Building and one-time Transport Minister. It’s the sort of popularity contest a year before a general election that makes governments nervous.
Especially when your candidate is a known maverick.
And
His big handicap is the ministerial baggage of someone who entered parliament in 1987. Whenever he or his National colleagues talk of the need for tolls or public private partnerships to fund more road building in Auckland, he’ll be leaving himself open to questions about what did he do about the problem when he was National’s minister of transport for all but one year between November 1993 and November 1999.
Over that period, only 25 per cent of national road builder Transit New Zealand’s money was spent north of Pukekohe, despite that area being home to around 40 per cent of the country’s population.
In 2009, the Greens’ transport research unit analysed years of Cabinet and Treasury documents and calculated that between June 1990 and June 2005, Aucklanders paid $7022 million in fuel taxes, road user charges and licence fees, but got only $3321.94 million – less than half – back in transport-related spending.
Not that Mr Williamson doesn’t like motorways. Before the 2005 elections he was comparing them to arteries in your body, pointing to Auckland’s unfinished highways with the comment, “if your arteries don’t join up you’d be dead”.
He said that if we listen to people who don’t want motorways, Auckland would build no more – “and we are grossly short of them”.
Before the 2008 election, Mr Williamson embarrassed Mr Key by pushing for road tolls of up to $50 a week to pay for his highway building plans. He said he didn’t know anyone who would not pay a $3-$5 toll each way if it would save them 40 minutes of commuting time.
On this, the two mayoral candidates seem on common ground. Mr Brown recently declared his conversion to tolls and other forms of road pricing. But they differ markedly on the need for public transport. In 2003, Mr Williamson asked in these pages “If congestion is as bad as we are told, and public transport such a great alternative, why aren’t people just moving that way of their own volition?”
It promises to be a lively debate. And when they tire of transport, there’s also the up-to-$20 billion leaky home bill, and who should pay. City or state? Seeing the Housing Minister squirm his way around this will be worth the ticket alone.
If Williamson does take the plunge, and I really hope he does, the Auckland race will deliver an uncanny echo of another mayoral contest, half a world away.
In 2008, Britain’s biggest city witnessed an entertaining, hot-tempered campaign, with the left-wing boy-next-door incumbent, Ken Livingstone, pitched against the bombastic liberal Tory MP pretender, Boris Johnson.
So the saying goes, history doesn’t repeat but it does rhyme.
And should Maurice Williamson challenge Len Brown this October for the Auckland mayoralty, that will be almost literally true. For Boris versus Ken, read Maurice versus Len.
and
But for all that, Maurice is dyed in National wool, with 26 years wearing blue ties in Parliament.
He has proved staunchly loyal to Key. And though he might not be a bosom buddy of Gerry Brownlee, he’s inescapably bound by the bear hug of the new Transport Minister’s statements.
Few things matter more in a city than transport.
In the Boris and Ken Show, transport was the conspicuous debating ground. Ken is most famous for his introduction of the central-city congestion charge.
Among Boris’s best known accomplishments are the romantic if economically bonkers decision to eliminate bendy buses in favour of modern Routemaster double-deckers (“Boris buses”) and the new public bicycle-sharing scheme (yes, of course, “Boris bikes”).
Transport will be front and centre in a Maurice versus Len contest, too.
Williamson was transport minister for most of the 1990s, a decade in which Auckland’s reliance on road, on its joyless network of concrete rivers, became entrenched.
He stands among the political architects that created the petrol soup of Auckland, a city that appears to visitors, such as Norwegian student Tore Tysbo, writing in these pages this week, to have automobile traffic as its “commander in chief”.
Len Brown’s 2010 campaign was full of train-love.
Maurice and outriders Brownlee and Steven Joyce have spent the last two-and-a-half years sighing condescendingly at the ambition to give Auckland a meaningful rail system.
Asked the other night by John Campbell whether National just liked roads, Brownlee smirked, “New Zealanders like roads. Aucklanders like roads.”
Maurice might try to wriggle into a more nuanced position if he’s running for mayor, but it’s difficult to see how he could avoid being seen as the Government placeman.
Inescapably he’ll be seen to embody the National position – for cars, for greater suburban sprawl, for the status quo.
That nice but boring Len will be seen to stand for residential intensification and a mixed transport approach, with rail at its heart.
Fans of the sitting mayor, the Lenists, might wonder whether their man will come to regret this week’s pronouncements in support of motorway tolls and congestion charging.
But if Maurice parrots the Brownlee position and rolls his eyes at such ideas, it won’t be long until someone fishes from the archives his ill-fated, late-90s “Better Transport, Better Roads” package. Then, Maurice was pushing for a wave of privatisation, along with, in his own words, “tolling for roads and congestion pricing”.
As the opinion pieces point out, for those interested in politics such a contest would at least be fun to watch and if Len did win, would pile a heap of pressure on the government over many key issues like the CRL. However I’m not interested in this post turning into a political debate about who should or shouldn’t be mayor and I don’t want this turning into the kind of religious debate about left and right politics. So please try to keep comments to the issues of the impact Maurice running would have on the debate around transport (and housing).
Processing...
We Don’t need a John Key, National Yes-man, Lackey
Mmmmh, from some of the stuff I have read about him, Williamson doesn’t seem dogmatic (and not a yes-man either, gazza-mac).
That said, he’s on record as being anti-PT and pro-roads, so he would have to swing around quite a bit before he would be a viable canidate for anyone concerned about Auckland’s gridlock and car-dominance (while also avoiding the accusation of pandering with PT promises which he isn’t intending to keep).
So I can’t see him winning that battle, as, like Banks, any pro-PT statement would always be seen as having a caveat. I still don’t see national elections being about transport (unless the Auckland campaign galvanises the matter, as Matt suggests in his post) but yeah – barring really random surprises, the Auckland elections this year will ALL be about housing/intensification and transport.
Williamson is a “yes -man” to the status quo (of cars cars and more cars) and also to the “markets are always right” attitude, which is why he was so hands off of Telecom during the ’90s.
I’d put him and the current Conservation Minister and former ACC “the sky is falling” Minister Nick Smith in the same boat, as being the biggest meddlers ever, while at the same time being completely hands off when it really matters.
Thats a hard act to pull off but Williamson and Smith have both pulled it off not once or twice but several times.
I am not sure why you’re so convinced that candidate Williamson wouldn’t come out gung-ho with “stuff the CRL! Cut funding for buses, they’re just for the poors! Sprawl out to Dargaville and Huntly! More motorways, including P2W, a second harbour bridge and, why not, Dominion Road!”
The Herald is pushing hard to demonise both the CRL and the Unitary Plan (which forms a single unit with the CRL, AT Hop and the new bus plans to recreate Auckland as a single city). Why wouldn’t a right-wing anti-PT candidate get groundswell support from (a) the St Heliers/Milford/Howick crowd, (b) working-class people who don’t understand trains because they haven’t been useful for the last 50 years?
Doloras, bring it on. The white vote alone doesn’t get you a mayoralty in Auckland anymore, and I don’t think Maurice appeals to the westies or south Aucklanders anyway. If he ran on such a platform, his campaign would sink deep.
It isn’t even the white vote, it is the white dinosaur vote that Dolores is talking about there.
Exactly. Note that Len Brown is, himself, a Palagi!
He is European actually!
Maybe Doloras was trying to imply (mostly correctly as far as I can tell) that Len Brown gets along really well with Pacifica folks?
As I said, I think opposing PT is political suicide these days. Sure there are some extreme types that agree with that and they can be fairly noisy but overall I don’t think there are that many votes in it.
On the other side, I am really worried about John Minto’s candidacy. He’ll be attacking Len hard on the handling of the Ports of Auckland dispute, which is fair enough – but I’m really worried about him taking a populist anti-intensification stance, like Chris Trotter is pushing him to (the Unitary Plan is a “developers’ charter”, and all those old white people at the local meetings are a “popular uprising” against it).
I’ve heard some people in John’s camp say that the CRL is a waste of money and far better to spend $2 billion on a fleet of electric buses which will run pretty much everywhere, all the time. This is the level of popular discourse on PT – the case for the CRL is NOT being made in terms that Sione Six-Pack in Mangere can understand, and people vote against what they don’t understand.
Minto isn’t going to have any real impact as the majority rightly see him as a nutter.
He doesn’t need a majority, he only needs about 10% to really threaten Len Brown’s majority. Matt McCarten was responsible for undermining Christine Fletcher and letting Banksie in 2002.
Minto is a different story to McCarten, I would be surprised if Minto managed more than 1 or 2%
1-2% that would help to keep Brown in power.
Does anyone here know Mr Williamson, or has studied his long career? Otherwise this is all gossip. From years gone past I have only seen him as a caring and sharing man, and not a party follower (you did notice he is not in cabinet!). Occasionally I have shared some beers with him at private functions over many years
I’ve followed Mr Williamson. I remember when he was Transport Minister and he was the biggest motorway nutter and train hater to ever get that post. I remember when we all breathed a sigh of relief when Key replaced him as Transport spokesman before the 2008 election. He’s not an unknown quantity.
I have followed his career as transport minister so no none of this is gossip, he’s on record with his dislike of PT.
Maurice and others are welcome to run, but I’ll be voting for Len to finally finish the business that Robbie couldn’t in 1975.
The long term future for Auckland without the CRL, rail to the Shore, Airport, and other mass transit options would be bleak.
The last time he was Minister for Transport was during the lead up to the 2008 election and I remember a write-up about his views on PT in Auckland, he stated that he was a big fan of a website that showed how expensive and useless PT was and according to his calculation it would make more sense to close PT down and buy everyone a car. This is not someone who will show the slightest bit of interest in PT, he’s a dyed in the wool hater of PT.
Actually he was the opposition spokesperson on Transport in the lead up to the 2008 election. CBT had a town hall meeting where the candidates spoke and he was there. He didn’t reveal much at all in the way of transport policy. Of course post election Steven Joyce becomes Minister of Transport and the Roads of National Significance comes into being.
I suspect if he does run his campaign will be similar. Light on any vision or actual policy apart from a commitment to keep rates down.
Sorry I mean to say he was the transport minister for National in the campaign against Helen Clark’s labour – I didn’t mean to imply he was the actual transport minister, he was the opposition as you point out. He was sacked because he mentioned tolling Auckland’s motorways. I actually recall him also being a big fan of the Eastern Highway and whilst he thought it was probably unlikely back then due to Banks’ loss, that’s not to say him along with a National government wouldn’t be adverse to bringing that back as a real possibility. Something Brownlee has alluded to.
I mainly recall him as the Minister who bequeathed us the leaky home debacle so I find the idea of him wanting to be mayor of a city with a huge financial liability as a result of his actions in government rather astonishing (to put it politely).
Maurice not getting many likes in the Herald articles. Wonder if he is carrying out any polling (in his own spare time of course).
Even if Williamson did win, the National party is likely to lose the next election, so the whole cosy relationship with Wellington point is a red-herring.
Don’t assume anything until it happens, it’s just as possible that National are back in and we have Maurice. Ironically national’s current plans to turn Auckland into a city run from Wellington would come in very handy in the event that the Greens and Labour win as they could simply overrule Williamson and go ahead and build the CRL regardless of what he said.
Don’t be too sure – there is still 18 months to go!
Yes, fair play to the herald, their editorial is not very flattering of Williamson as a mayor to improve Auckland, rather it contends his election would only promote tribal politics. And whose to say that National would win the next election. It could well be a labour/ greens coalition. Either way, he has no experience as a mayor and is likely to be just as ineffectual as Banks. We don’t need ‘retirement’ mayors, we need someone to continue driving needed change and reform in Auckland.
However other articles have just been press releases from Cameron Brewer about him being a ‘well needed circuit breaker’. Code for cancelling the CRL, canning the Auckland Plan and just doing as National wants.
Well, I’m not so sure that the CRL has such wide support. For a great number of us, spending $2-3B for trains to Mt. Eden has no appeal at all, especially people who live in the East and (especially) on the Shore who will be paying for this and getting nothing back.
While most people would agree with the concept of widespread and frequent public transport to reduce the gridlock, the CRL only reinforces the message that this new Auckland Council is all about taking more money out of the East and the Shore and subsidising the centre and South.
“… this new Auckland Council is all about taking more money out of the East and the Shore and subsidising the centre and South…”
There is no East and Shore and Centre and South, there is just the Auckland supercity. The “I’m all right jack”, Balkanised thinking like yours is why Auckland went nowhere for twenty plus years.
Get with the program.
Many people are not as well informed as you are ( and I include myself on this matter ) which is why I follow this blog to get a better idea of the issues.Is there really the need to have a go at anyone who doesnt exactly fit your philosophy and may have bought the media hype. Aless harsh way is to explain and win over converts not chastise them and entrench them in their opinions. You are not doing your cause a favour.
Maybe you missed these ones as to the wider vision etc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcTmFk2KfFs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oBB02WazSwM
David – Every survey I have seen over the last number of years has shown the CRL has support in the range of 70-80%. Further to suggest it is just project to get trains to Mt Eden shows one big bugbears at the moment that AT aren’t getting decent information out to the public to show just how transformational the project is. The project also has benefits to the shore and east. For the Shore it helps to free up space in the city centre so more buses can be run, for the east, a quick and easy transfer at Panmure will allow people a much quicker trip to town.
There is no Individual, only the collective eh Sanc.
So your rebuttal is “There is no community, just Me”?
Actually it was Sanctuary condemning someone for talking about individual communities.
At least with the previous council structure we had choice. Any way my main point is – let the users pay
“Any way my main point is – let the users pay”
Lol, exactly Swan (though I can’t tell whether you understand what you said or not).
If we actually made the users pay for the costs they are creating by driving cars everywhere, we could lower rates/taxes, RAISE pt fare costs, and still get tons of people choosing PT. User pays, here in NZ, is all too often “burden the unpopular projects with extra costs”, while letting the comfy status quo continue for the roading system.
Regarding Maurice, the leaky homes comment actually strikes home. Would be a nice counter to any election publicity of his. He can’t very well run on a “I’ll fix what I screwed up” basis.
Sounds like you agree with me Starnius. Of course that world with congestion free roads, there won’t be any imminent need to pour capital into expensive rail projects.
It constantly amazes me that people post comments like that which display a level of ignorance about the project that could only be achieved by wilfully ignoring all information that is available on this blog and in many other places.
The CRL will create a rail network that will mean more trains for the Eastern line and a better connnection for passengers. Once the AMETI project comes online, the benefits to the East will be even greater as the busway links with Panmure station.
As far the North Shore goes, as a resident of the North Shore I know from even a moments research, that no PT to the North is possible until we have the CRL built. Then we can build a rail tunnel linking to Aotea Station via Akoranga to Takapuna. Ultimately the line will go up the existing Northern Busway (which is a huge success BTW and shows PT does work in Auckland).
If you dont agree with the CRL, what is your solution to Auckland’s transport problems? Self driving cars, telecommuting – or shall we just pull up the moat and not allow any other people into Auckland (a la cities in the Eastern bloc pre-1989)? Those are about the only alternatives I have heard that weren’t already dismissed in the CCFAS (do you know what that is? Have you read it?).
It most certainly is possible to have PT to the shore without the CRL (we currently have it now). The busway has plenty of spare capacity & will have more if projects like the Fanshawe St busway are built. I don’t think a new second harbour crossing for both road or rail is needed for at least the next 30 years.
As for alternatives to the CRL. Being more polycentric is something to consider though I admit it has some flaws. Despite that it works pretty well for many cities in the US,
Yes, you may have seen the bit where I said the busway was a success. I mean rail based (and therefore scaleable) PT is dependent on the CRL.
Polycentric or diversified? Residential or employment? What are you proposing? Polycentric employment is fine, as long as it is allied with PT as it means putting more employment along the rail lines and therefore making it easier for people to get to work. In fact the vast majority of employment now in Auckland is close to the rail lines.
Diversification is what has lead to most of our traffic problems. Spreading employment out has meant people are left with little option but to drive.
Which cities has it worked well for in the US? Houston (http://www.houstontomorrow.org/livability/story/quality-of-life-declining-in-houston/)? Or some other beautiful urban landscapes like Phoenix?
Scalable? Do you think there is a capacity problem with PT on the Shore? Not in the forseeable future there isn’t.
1st – lets get back to differentiating between PT (public transport), buses, and Mass Transit, bus ways and trains – dedicated RIGHT OF WAY.
2nd – Yes right now the Shore bus way is no way near capacity itself. The issues are that it terminates just after Onewa Road and then becomes a “Bus lane” just after the bridge, and then plane old city streets after that. This is only a partial mass transit. So scalable to a degree if you will willing to hand over 2 general traffic lanes between Fanshaw Street and Akoranga. I could swear I hear Maurice, George, Cameron convulsing at that thought 🙂 !
So the “Bus” worshipers must front up or shut up.Otherwise it’s just another case of hypocrisy.
Before answering take a gander at the CCFAS. I like buses, they are a very efficient means of public transport. What I hate is some using them as a political football. This and the irrational belief that the increasing population growth issue are because of Len Brown and his socialistic masters. Think! Why! Its central government policy (please note I haven’t said Nation Party policy) to bring in more immigrants and its the FREE MARKET that leads them all to Auckland.
Were are all these buses going to be parked? How much road space will be left over to general road users? The fuel bill? The pollution? The Orwellian-ism of our city spaces! How much would the vaunted bus tunnel truly cost? What are your alternatives?
The status quo just mean increasing the problems. Len has given us a $1.6 billion solution. What is your solution?
Hey goosoid, Re ( do you know what that is Have you read it ?) Whole heartedly agree with your response until you get to the end where you seem to lose patience with david b. How about getting off the high horse and understand that some people on this blog will not have the background or knowledge to fully understand the issues and therefore need to ask questions. Theres an old sayig there are no dumb questions just dumb answers. The PT cause is best served by patiently explaining the PT position .To attack others doesnt win converts . Too often we are preaching to the converted on this blog so if the average joe joins in ,give them a chance and get them onside even if they say the stupidist things in your view..
Well said Robert. I’ve been following this blog for almost 3 years and there are some topics I don’t understand at all. There does often seem to be hectoring of anyone who doesn’t understand or takes an opposing view, but usually this is from respondents, not the contributors. Contributors will inevitably be Public Transport advocates, but knowing that, I still find the blog very informative and the majority of contributors to be genuinely trying to convert the sceptics in an enlightened way. Keep up the good work.
I kind of agree with you, but I do wish commenters would make the effort to click the CRL link at the top of the blog and understand what the project is about before commenting. A lot of effort has gone into those pages and it is frustrating to have to constantly correct people on facts that are just one click away.
You think asking someone for alternate ideas ands pointing them to information that refutes their position is an attack? Where were the personal attacks? I never attacked DaveB as a person. Wow the concept of informed debate is just about dead in this country isnt?
I am not a transport professional and I have no qualifications and/or experience in transport policy. But if I am going to comment on someone else’s idea for solutions, I will make sure I read all available information and be prepared to offer a viable, well thought out alternative. Otherwise I am just being negative and obstructive.
I dont think that is asking too much in the context of an informed debate. If someone isnt interested enough to do that, then how can I respect their opinion?
I agree with you in regard to the busway having capacity for some time yet and likely time frames for another harbour crossing of any mode. I do disagree about being more polycentric as there doesn’t appear to be any evidence that it will make anything better despite it being attempted in numerous cities (including Auckland) over the last few decades.
Goodies, have you heard of road pricing? It was not looked at in the CCFAS because the CCFAS is a political document.
Absolutely, all for road pricing, especially congestion charges. However, road pricing is useful for encouraging people to at least try the existing PT system. The problem is that we need to build that PT system first and the CRL is the first, crucial, stage. What we have now is not really a PT system.
As for the CCFAS being political, unfortunately the transport debate is political in this country, especially when it comes to rail. If someone regards themselves as right wing they are almost invariably against PT and evidence be damned.
Everywhere else in the world (except maybe in the heavily auto dependent SW USA) the debate is about where and when shall we build rail. Here we are still having debates about whether rail is a good idea, debates that were largely concluded in other developed countries decades ago.
Sorry, my phone auto corrected your handle, Goosoid.
“On this, the two mayoral candidates seem on common ground. Mr Brown recently declared his conversion to tolls and other forms of road pricing.”
Brown is supporting congestion charging for the wrong reasons – to raise revenue. Congestion charging should be revenue neutral. If Maurice runs on road pricing it will be a clean break from the tired old thinking of the right and the left on transport. That really is exciting.
“Brown is supporting congestion charging for the wrong reasons – to raise revenue”
Of course he does. If the Wellington government (which choke-holds 2/3rds of the transport funding in NZ) tells Auckland we have to pay for the CRL ourselves, then we can either whimper and mope in the corner, or actually make a go of it.
The traffic reduction benefits are just a side bonus. Sod the idea of it having to be revenue-neutral!
Plus, a revenue-neutral road-pricing scheme is even more un-equitable. If the money gained from it is not redistributed to public transport projects or other projects which apply over more of the population, and more to the lower-socio-economic parts of society, then road pricing is nothing more but a redistribution of road space (and uncongested running) towards the SUV and lexus brigade, which has an easier time paying for it.
Road pricing money thus MUST be used to fund projects like the CRL, or its becomes a social poison which only adds to a class-divided society.
Maybe to the Lexus brigade. Also to the bus brigade. 50 people on a bus also have a fairly high ability to pay.
Why do we need to subsidise other forms of transport? If we are concerned about inequality, we can redistribute money through the tax and welfare system. Let the individual decide what they want their share spent. You may find a low income person would rather spend the money on better quality food or clothes (or save it) than spend it on transport.
Hmm… (at the risk of feeding the trolls), we subsidise the car to an incredible degree here and in many countries around the world, not even taking into account the massive negative externalities in societal/health/environmental costs (which some research in the US says brings it to almost $1 per each mile). It’s not about whether to “subsidise other forms of transport” as simply making it a fair ball game for transportation choices.
I think it should be noticed and appreciated that, while dialogue on this reputable blog should be varied and accepting of all points of view, the majority of contributors seem to be interested in the associated societal issue of fairness and justice. I applaud that. Preferential funding for cars (e.g., Funding Assistance Ratios (FARs)) is clearly not fair and just.
I am in favour of reducing any subsidy to cars. Not sure how “two wrongs make a right” though – why subsidise other transport just because we subsidise cars? Shouldnt we instead focus on reducing the subsidy for cars if that is the problem? Fairness and justice sounds good to me too, but it doesnt relate to inanimate things such as different modes of transport. The fact that rail or helicopter travel is treated in a particular way isnt really a justice issue. I am also not sure I agree that we subsidise car use to “an incredible degree”. Road use is essentially self funding. District plans are probably the major source of subsidy for cars in NZ, and I wholeheartedly agree they should be changed.
I get idea that people think that funding public transport is in the interests of fairness and justice because it is more accessible to poor and disabled people. I think funding public transport is an inefficient way of improving the lot of poorer people. Much like any direct subsidisation of a particular good or service (with the possible exception of health and education). I would rather we just transferred cash to poorer people and let them decide what they want to spend it on. I think that is the best/fairest thing we can do. All people, but in particular poorer people are resourceful and are generally better at running their own lives than someone else. Giving people cash allows them to spend it as they see fit.
Specifically in response to Swans’ public transport for poor people – My household has the use of 3 motor vehicles (a work vehicle and 2 private cars) for 2 adults and 2 primary school children, we own our own large house, with harbour views just up from a beach and an actual back yard with plenty of room for the kids to run and play, and have a large vege plot. Oh and did I mention we are mortgage free – just an indication of our income.
When I have the choice to use transit I jump at the chance. I most certainly prefer using the Birkenhead ferry whenever I have to go into the city. And when ever I go out to Sylvia Park, Newmarket or New Lynn its Ferry then Train.
So I say we need to reduce the road subsidy and drastically ramp up the transit subsidy. I can see how the likes of swan and others of his ilk would be so anti. Because I was one with them right up to the early 2000’s. I had kittens when I saw the ARC demanding that we on the Shore pay for Auckland’s trains, when there wasn’t one any closer than a 15 minute drive! This got me to thinking WHY? and reading and researching.
The “unfairness” of 60 years of state subsidy to roads, private motorists, the freight trucking industry, was just eye popping! So I say “two wrongs MUST make a right” – we need a level playing field before we can sit back and truly introduce user pays. Swans fairness might work, but only after the fields are even. Anything else is just hypocrisy!
Well said PM!
Oh and of course it is important to remember that road users do benefit directly from increased uptake of alternatives by others; especially on those modes that don’t use the roads (trains, ferries and separate bus ways)or use very little road or parking space (cycling and walking).
Because without any viable options people are forced to pay to drive.
But in what set of circumstances are there no other options. In a world where we stopped subsidising transport, and initiated road pricng, I am 99.9% sure buses would still exist, and would probably exist in far greater numbers than today. So taking the bus would be an option. Other options (both short and long term) – car pooling, cycling, walking, traveling off peak, not travelling at all, moving house, moving job, changing travel patterns for shopping, recreation etc.
Swan driving is subsidised too, and this you know. But also [and i am in favour of road pricing] it is not sufficient to disincentivise the underpriced mode [car use] it is also necessary to provide viable, attractive, and efficient alternatives. London, Stockholm, and Singapore all had fully functionary and mature Transit systems before they introduced road pricing. The question remains can we in Auckland sucessfully say price the mortorway network before there is a resonably adquate network of alternatives? And, after decades of underinvestment, fractured ownership, and lavish provision of the other mode [driving] it is undeniably the case that Auckland does not yet offer any kind of effective alternative to driving for many people and many journeys.
Isn’t there an enourmous risk that the introduction of such a scheme will just lead to overwhelmed local roads and even more frustration with buses and trains are missed because they are full [already observable]? As well as controversy and conflict over the payment of charges? If this was the outcome it could put back the introduction of such a tool for decades in AK. We are in a chicken and egg situation especially as the current government has chosen to only fund road improvements despite the biggest transport spend in decades. Remeber only 39 million over then next three years for Auckland PT infrastructure capex, which is in no way adequate to either improve the Transit offer significantly nor improve its efficiency….?
You seem to imagine we live in a world of perfect theorectical purity. Even with perfect price incentives no one can conjure up a Transit system from thin air; it has to exist first in order to be chosen.
My point is that I think the existing infrastructure we have ( the road network) will cope fine as it is currently being used very inefficiently. You will want to signal it far enough in advance to allow the bus companies to get their orders in. No doubt some sort of phase in period over a year or two would be useful so everyone could get a better idea of the price level and where it might trend. Once that happens we will be able to see far more easily if large scale rail investment will be recoverable in fares. I suspect not.
As for overcrowding local roads, you would want the system to cover all roads to avoid this. That is one of the problems with the CBG, they seem to have ruled out GPS based road pricing, it is only motorway or cordon charging on the table.
But Swan your evidence for this is only theory, no idea about physical constraints in Auckland. We just cannot add another thousand buses to city streets. The driving greedies will never allow whole streets like Symonds St to become permanent busways which is exactly the kind of thing that would be necessary to get anywhere near fitting them. Anyway we are working hard to remove vehicles from streets, including buses to improve place value.
Reality trumps theory every time, no matter how pretty or ideal that theory is.
We have hundreds of years of examples of applying market based solutions to the problem of scarcity, so it is hardly theory. The fact it has not been tried as comprehensively as I am suggesting is to do with technology. We now have the technology.
As for physical constraints… Presumably it cant be any worse than what we have right now? I am not proposing we destroy infrastucture. We could have this up and running in a few years, and would have plenty of time to actually observe whether or not additional infrastructure is required, we would not have to guess.
As a side note, Symonds St (or any other street) would not have to be given over to buses, instead it would likely have a high price to use, which car drivers would be welcome to pay.
Sounds like we need an Auckland Party in the elections next year.
Would automatically get a couple of list seats and could ensure Welly supports the CRL…
I struggle to see that there is endless capacity in the bus way to the Shore. I take that view because I use it at least five days per week, twice daily.It is absolutely true that many extra services could be introduced,and for much of the day and for much of the journey there would not be problems.
But there currently are considerable problems.
For those acessing Akoranga by car,Fred Thomas Drive remains jammed from about 7am to 8.15am and is getting worse. This access road was designed about two years ago. That it can be so inadequate within such a short period of time is a very poor reflection on AT.
However most of the problems occur on the city to Shore leg. I for one find it completely unacceptable to sit for up to 25 minutes while the bus (barely) moves from the Civic to the bottom of Albert Street. And then Fanshawe is often badly jammed. For those who travel to the Takapuna township rather than Akoranga,Esmonde Road is also tortuous.
In my view, for many it may be the return journey that may make the prospect of using the bus way each day less desirable than driving.
I have been fortunate to travel to countries that have wonderful rail systems. Even developing countries like Brazil and Argentina have systems that shame our attempts to run a public rail transport system. The ones that I have ridden are quick, enormously popular, able to collect fares and a real alternative to driving. In many cases they are the reason that people are able to move around the city.
If the government can fund the holiday highway that doesn’t stack up economically then why can they not contemplate a North Shore rail system that is likely to stack up simply because of the sheer number of people who may be able to use it?
I am very much in favour of the intensification of Takapuna – we could even do Milford’s share, but if we are to do this is it not reasonable for Takapuna to have an excellent public transport model?
Good PT systems in Argentina and Brazil, huh? Wow, good for them. There’s no doubt population size has an impact on a country’s economy and it’s ability to fund PT and other infrastructure.
Population in Argentina: 49 million and 198m in Brazil. But then we have 8m in Switzerland, so it’s not all down to population although they have european community benefits.
So, we’re up against it with our size and available funding which makes it more important to invest what little we have wisely. And I don’t think we’re always good at doing that. However we raise funds, be it through fuel taxes, general taxes, we have to use the funds in a way that we get the best bang for buck. Just because funds have been collected by a fuel tax shouldn’t mean they’re all used on roading. Think of the benefits to growth areas such as tourism in tourists, and locals, being able to get about by train.
Without wishing to offend, I’m curious as to whether those against rail have spent time living in countries with developed networks? I didn’t give a stuff about rail until I had the opportunity to work in london for a few years and now I hate the fact it’s so limited over here. Sorry, Maurice, I’ve forgotten about you!
What about Australia for PT smallish cities, small country population and disparate population too.
Perth is a similar size to Ak and with a more dispersed population. And guess what happened when they electrified and built an underground city rail line? Boom! Patronage went through the roof to great advantage of the whole city. They are still adding lines.
Switzerland isnt in the European Union but obviously economically is in a different boat from NZ. Denmark does pretty well for a population of 5m. Ireland also is investing heavily in rail based PT in Dublin with very similar challenges and population to NZ.
So now we have another millionaire who thinks they can run a city (without the CRL) – John Palino has put his name in the hat. Will this mean that Maurice won’t run?
These guys just have too much time on their hands. I”d stick to cooking. Palino thinks building Manukau up is much more do-able and it should be achieveable to gain funding from the government and the community to do this so good luck to him. He should concentrate on this one during the campaign. Sure sounds like he’s going to throw some money on it though. A smooth-sounding american for mayor.
I think it will be important to get people out to vote. Voter-apathy could be Len’s greatest threat.
Well if he was really like Bloomberg he’d be radically pro-transit, road diets, cycling, New Urbanism, and be appointing someone visionary like JSK:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janette_Sadik-Khan
The Bloomberg win was also pretty instrumental in the High Line becoming reality, but he was running against a Banks type character so in reality Len Brown is the closest Bloomberg will be getting. Julie-Anne Genter will be our Jannete Sadik-Khan and I’m betting she’ll be truly transformational for NZ if she is ever able to become the transport minister.
I mentioned Brazil successfully using passenger rail because the country is still considered as developing and yet they can find money for such a project. The metro in Rio de Janeiro has been wholely funded by the state of that province and so the overall population of the country is not a factor. While the city now has a population of 6.3 million, the project started in 1970. One of the reasons for the project was the explosion of the number of motor vehicles -is there any comparison with Auckland? Interestingly, although the project started in 1970 it only opened in 1979 and with just five stations. Money was a problem.
It seems to me that it is not overall population, but rather density that allows metro rail to be successful. And yet density done well can be attractive. Copacana in Rio is one of the top tourist destinations of South America, so it is undoubtedly appealing to many. How can this be when 160, 000 people are packed into a relatively small borough? The population density is 20,400 / sq km. But there are tree lined streets and many public spaces. 27% of the population is over 60 so it is obviously appealing to old and young.
Like you Patrick I beleieve that if we build rail the people will come – assuming that we build it in the right place. We have a humble example of this in our wonderful capital city. They built a stadium next to the rail and now that is how people come to the rugby. Conversely the basketball stadium was built on the congested airport route and that will be part of the reason that they have to build a monstrous flyover around the Basin.
Similarly Albany has been a triumph of urban planning. We have built a carpark for those who commute to the city that sits largely empty on weekends and developers have built a mall carpark that sits largely empty during the week. Or am I missing something?
Maurice was one of the ones who wanted the state highways sold into private ownership, so that they would operate the same as rail.
I do not know much about those persons, just I recall a post a while back that looked at how certain aspects become more efficient with higher concentrations such as transport and electricity. In that post the author said the health greenness got worse which is interesting as this guys claims large cities make these things better.